Dataset Information

Low-dose adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone in the prevention of acute adverse reactions to antivenom following snakebite: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Envenoming from snakebites is most effectively treated by antivenom. However, the antivenom available in South Asian countries commonly causes acute allergic reactions, anaphylactic reactions being particularly serious. We investigated whether adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone prevent such reactions in secondary referral hospitals in Sri Lanka by conducting a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.In total, 1,007 patients were randomized, using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adrenaline (0.25 ml of a 1?1,000 solution subcutaneously), promethazine (25 mg intravenously), and hydrocortisone (200 mg intravenously), each alone and in all possible combinations. The interventions, or matching placebo, were given immediately before infusion of antivenom. Patients were monitored for mild, moderate, or severe adverse reactions for at least 96 h. The prespecified primary end point was the effect of the interventions on the incidence of severe reactions up to and including 48 h after antivenom administration. In total, 752 (75%) patients had acute reactions to antivenom: 9% mild, 48% moderate, and 43% severe; 89% of the reactions occurred within 1 h; and 40% of all patients were given rescue medication (adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone) during the first hour. Compared with placebo, adrenaline significantly reduced severe reactions to antivenom by 43% (95% CI 25-67) at 1 h and by 38% (95% CI 26-49) up to and including 48 h after antivenom administration; hydrocortisone and promethazine did not. Adding hydrocortisone negated the benefit of adrenaline.Pretreatment with low-dose adrenaline was safe and reduced the risk of acute severe reactions to snake antivenom. This may be of particular importance in countries where adverse reactions to antivenom are common, although the need to improve the quality of available antivenom cannot be overemphasized.

SUBMITTER: de Silva HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3091849 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-dose adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone in the prevention of acute adverse reactions to antivenom following snakebite: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

de Silva H Asita HA Pathmeswaran Arunasalam A Ranasinha Channa D CD Jayamanne Shaluka S Samarakoon Senarath B SB Hittharage Ariyasena A Kalupahana Ranjith R Ratnatilaka G Asoka GA Uluwatthage Wimalasiri W Aronson Jeffrey K JK Armitage Jane M JM Lalloo David G DG de Silva H Janaka HJ

PLoS medicine 20110510 5

<h4>Background</h4>Envenoming from snakebites is most effectively treated by antivenom. However, the antivenom available in South Asian countries commonly causes acute allergic reactions, anaphylactic reactions being particularly serious. We investigated whether adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone prevent such reactions in secondary referral hospitals in Sri Lanka by conducting a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>In total, 1,007 patients were ...[more]

PMID: 21572992

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePretreatment with hydrocortisone (prehydrocortisone) has been used to protect against adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following antivenom administration after snakebite. However, controversial results have been reported in studies evaluating its efficacy. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prehydrocortisone on the risk of ADRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for relevant studies on the literature published up to December 6, 2020, with no language restrictions. Premedications, including hydrocortisone with or without other drugs, were compared with placebo or no premedication. Our primary end point was the risk of ADRs, which was reported as the number of patients who developed ADRs divided by the total number of snakebite patients administered with antivenom separately for the prehydrocortisone and control groups for each study. We evaluated pooled data using of a random-effects model.ResultsAmong 831 identified studies, 4 were eligible and included in our analysis (N = 1348 participants). Upon combining all eight comparisons from the four selected studies, the overall pooled odds ratio (OR) for ADRs was 0.47 (95% CI 0.19, 1.17; p=0.11; I 2 = 68%). When the analysis was restricted to only articles using hydrocortisone with other drugs, the pooled OR was 0.19 (95% CI 0.05, 0.75; p=0.02; I 2 = 55%). The result was not statistically significant when the analysis was restricted to studies using prehydrocortisone alone, or randomized controlled designs, or cohorts. Our study was limited by heterogeneity, quality, and a paucity of data.ConclusionsThe findings in this study revealed that prehydrocortisone alone was ineffective. However, the substantial beneficial effect of prehydrocortisone combinations with premedications (injectable antihistamines or adrenaline) used against ADRs cannot be excluded. Therefore, the use of prehydrocortisone combinations with premedications (injectable antihistamines or adrenaline) as a prophylaxis may reduce the ADRs to antivenom.

Project description:BackgroundDeath adders (Acanthophis spp) are found in Australia, Papua New Guinea and parts of eastern Indonesia. This study aimed to investigate the clinical syndrome of death adder envenoming and response to antivenom treatment.Methodology/principal findingsDefinite death adder bites were recruited from the Australian Snakebite Project (ASP) as defined by expert identification or detection of death adder venom in blood. Clinical effects and laboratory results were collected prospectively, including the time course of neurotoxicity and response to treatment. Enzyme immunoassay was used to measure venom concentrations. Twenty nine patients had definite death adder bites; median age 45 yr (5-74 yr); 25 were male. Envenoming occurred in 14 patients. Two further patients had allergic reactions without envenoming, both snake handlers with previous death adder bites. Of 14 envenomed patients, 12 developed neurotoxicity characterised by ptosis (12), diplopia (9), bulbar weakness (7), intercostal muscle weakness (2) and limb weakness (2). Intubation and mechanical ventilation were required for two patients for 17 and 83 hours. The median time to onset of neurotoxicity was 4 hours (0.5-15.5 hr). One patient bitten by a northern death adder developed myotoxicity and one patient only developed systemic symptoms without neurotoxicity. No patient developed venom induced consumption coagulopathy. Antivenom was administered to 13 patients, all receiving one vial initially. The median time for resolution of neurotoxicity post-antivenom was 21 hours (5-168). The median peak venom concentration in 13 envenomed patients with blood samples was 22 ng/mL (4.4-245 ng/mL). In eight patients where post-antivenom bloods were available, no venom was detected after one vial of antivenom.Conclusions/significanceDeath adder envenoming is characterised by neurotoxicity, which is mild in most cases. One vial of death adder antivenom was sufficient to bind all circulating venom. The persistent neurological effects despite antivenom, suggests that neurotoxicity is not reversed by antivenom.

Project description:BackgroundAntivenom is the treatment of choice for snakebite, which annually kills an estimated 32,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa and leaves approximately 100,000 survivors with permanent physical disabilities that exert a considerable socioeconomic burden. Over the past two decades, the high costs of the most polyspecifically-effective antivenoms have sequentially reduced demand, commercial manufacturing incentives and production volumes that have combined to create a continent-wide vacuum of effective snakebite therapy. This was quickly filled with new, less expensive antivenoms, many of which are of untested efficacy. Some of these successfully marketed antivenoms for Africa are inappropriately manufactured with venoms from non-African snakes and are dangerously ineffective. The uncertain efficacy of available antivenoms exacerbates the complexity of designing intervention measures to reduce the burden of snakebite in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this study was to preclinically determine the ability of antivenoms available in Kenya to neutralise the lethal effects of venoms from the most medically important snakes in East Africa.MethodsWe collected venom samples from the most medically important snakes in East Africa and determined their toxicity in a mouse model. Using a 'gold standard' comparison protocol, we preclinically tested the comparative venom-neutralising efficacy of four antivenoms available in Kenya with two antivenoms of clinically-proven efficacy. To explain the variant efficacies of these antivenoms we tested the IgG-venom binding characteristics of each antivenom using in vitro IgG titre, avidity and venom-protein specificity assays. We also measured the IgG concentration of each antivenom.FindingsNone of the six antivenoms are preclinically effective, at the doses tested, against all of the most medically important snakes of the region. The very limited snake polyspecific efficacy of two locally available antivenoms is of concern. In vitro assays of the abilities of 'test' antivenom IgGs to bind venom proteins were not substantially different from that of the 'gold standard' antivenoms. The least effective antivenoms had the lowest IgG content/vial.ConclusionsManufacture-stated preclinical efficacy statements guide decision making by physicians and antivenom purchasers in sub-Saharan Africa. This is because of the lack of both clinical data on the efficacy of most of the many antivenoms used to treat patients and independent preclinical assessment. Our preclinical efficacy assessment of antivenoms available in Kenya identifies important limitations for two of the most commonly-used antivenoms, and that no antivenom is preclinically effective against all the regionally important snakes. The potential implication to snakebite treatment is of serious concern in Kenya and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, and underscores the dilemma physicians face, the need for clinical data on antivenom efficacy and the medical and societal value of establishing independent preclinical antivenom-efficacy testing facilities throughout the continent.

Project description:Introduction The synthetic glucocorticoid dexamethasone can induce serious neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Dexamethasone activates the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) but, unlike endogenous cortisol, not the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR). Moreover, dexamethasone suppresses cortisol production, thereby eliminating its MR binding. Consequently, GR overactivation combined with MR underactivation may contribute to the neuropsychiatric adverse effects of dexamethasone. The DEXA-CORT trial aims to reactivate the MR using cortisol to reduce neuropsychiatric adverse effects of dexamethasone treatment. Methods and analysis The DEXA-CORT study is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult patients who undergo elective brain tumour resection treated perioperatively with high doses of dexamethasone to minimise cerebral oedema. 180 patients are randomised between treatment with either two times per day 10 mg hydrocortisone or placebo during dexamethasone treatment. The primary study outcome is the difference in proportion of patients scoring ≥3 points on at least one of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) questions 5 days postoperatively or earlier at discharge. Secondary outcomes are neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of sleep, health-related quality of life and neurocognitive functioning at several time points postoperatively. Furthermore, neuropsychiatric history, serious adverse events, prescribed (psychiatric) medication and referrals or evaluations of psychiatrist/psychologist and laboratory measurements are assessed. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Center, and by the Dutch competent authority, and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. It is an investigator-initiated study with financial support by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and the Dutch Brain Foundation. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NL6726 (Netherlands Trial Register); open for patient inclusion. EudraCT number 2017-003705-17.

Dataset Information

Low-dose adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone in the prevention of acute adverse reactions to antivenom following snakebite: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Low-dose adrenaline, promethazine, and hydrocortisone in the prevention of acute adverse reactions to antivenom following snakebite: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets